Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40408143›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2025

Safety and User Experience of a Generative Artificial Intelligence Digital Mental Health Intervention: Exploratory Randomized Controlled Trial.

Timothy R Campellone, Megan Flom, Robert M Montgomery, Lauren Bullard, Maddison C Pirner, Aaron Pavez, Michelle Morales, Devin Harper, Catherine Oddy, Tom O'Connor and 5 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05948670 (An Exploratory Randomized Controlled Trial of Participant Satisfaction With the BUILD Mobile Application), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05948670 nacompletednot on this map

An Exploratory Randomized Controlled Trial of Participant Satisfaction With the BUILD Mobile Application

TypeinterventionalSponsorWoebot HealthRan2023 to 2023Enrolled175ConditionsSatisfaction, PersonalArmsDISC-MVP, DISC-CON
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Responsible artificial intelligence integration framework for psychiatric guidelines.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Timothy R CampelloneWoebot Health, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8793-9576
Megan FlomWoebot Health, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4896-1009
Robert M MontgomeryWoebot Health, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9637-9753
Lauren BullardWoebot Health, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7368-2618
Maddison C PirnerWoebot Health, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3993-0606
Aaron PavezWoebot Health, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-9358-7588
Michelle MoralesWoebot Health, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0440-4373
Devin HarperWoebot Health, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0955-8523
Catherine OddyWoebot Health, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-9550-9560
Tom O'ConnorWoebot Health, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8214-0270
Jade DanielsWoebot Health, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8593-3712
Stephanie EaneffWoebot Health, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3657-5063
Valerie L Forman-HoffmanWoebot Health, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7885-8873
Casey SackettWoebot Health, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6314-0305
Alison DarcyWoebot Health, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5082-7685

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeneral awareness and exposure to generative artificial intelligence (AI) have increased recently. This transformative technology has the potential to create a more dynamic and engaging user experience in digital mental health interventions (DMHIs). However, if not appropriately used and controlled, it can introduce risks to users that may result in harm and erode trust. At the time of conducting this trial, there had not been a rigorous evaluation of an approach to safely implementing generative AI in a DMHI.

objectiveThis study aims to explore the user relationship, experience, safety, and technical guardrails of a DMHI using generative AI compared with a rules-based intervention.

methodsWe conducted a 2-week exploratory randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 160 adult participants randomized to receive a generative AI (n=81) or rules-based (n=79) version of a conversation-based DMHI. Self-report measures of the user relationship (client satisfaction, working alliance bond, and accuracy of empathic listening and reflection) and experience (engagement metrics, adverse events, and technical guardrail success) were collected. Descriptions and validation of technical guardrails for handling user inputs (eg, detecting potentially concerning language and off-topic responses) and model outputs (eg, not providing medical advice and not providing a diagnosis) are provided, along with examples to illustrate how they worked. Safety monitoring was conducted throughout the trial for adverse events, and the success of technical guardrails created for the generative arm was assessed post trial.

resultsIn general, the majority of measures of user relationship and experience appeared to be similar in both the generative and rules-based arms. The generative arm appeared to be more accurate at detecting and responding to user statements with empathy (98% accuracy vs 69%). There were no serious or device-related adverse events, and technical guardrails were shown to be 100% successful in posttrial review of generated statements. A majority of participants in both groups reported an increase in positive sentiment (62% and 66%) about AI at the end of the trial.

conclusionsThis trial provides initial evidence that, with the right guardrails and process, generative AI can be successfully used in a digital mental health intervention (DMHI) while maintaining the user experience and relationship. It also provides an initial blueprint for approaches to technical and conversational guardrails that can be replicated to build a safe DMHI.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05948670; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05948670.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceMental HealthAdultFemaleGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionYoung AdultAIartificial intelligencechatbotscontrolled trialsdigital healthdigital mental health interventionDMHIexploratorygenerativegenerative AImental healthrandomizedrandomized controlled trialRCTrelationshipsafetysatisfactionuseruser experienceuser relationshipuser safetyuser satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID40408143
PMCPMC12144468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.